[Cites 22, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sonu Mann vs Fatehjang Singh Chahal And Others on 14 January, 2026

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                              AT CHANDIGARH
                                   ****

(i)                                                 RSA No.815 of 2019 (O&M)
Fateh Jang Singh Chahal
                                                            . . . . Appellant
                               vs

Varinder Kaur Mann and others                               . . . . Respondents

                               ****
(ii)                                                RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)
Smt. Naresh Sandhu and others
                                                             . . . . Appellants
                               vs

Varinder Kaur Mann and others                               . . . . Respondents

                               ****
(iii)                                               RSA No.415 of 2025 (O&M)
Sonu Mann
                                                            . . . . Appellant
                               vs

Fateh Jang Singh Chahal and others                          . . . . Respondents

                               ****
(iv)                                                RSA No.3416 of 2023 (O&M)
Fateh Jang Singh Chahal
                                                            . . . . Appellant
                               vs

Varinder Kaur Mann and another                              . . . . Respondents

                             ****
                  Reserved on: December 19, 2025
                  Pronounced on: January 14, 2026
                  Pronounced Full/Partly :Fully

                            ****
CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Argued By:- Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with
            Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate


                                      1 of 50
                   ::: Downloaded on - 17-01-2026 22:00:41 :::
 RSA No.815 of 2019 (O&M)
RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)
RSA No.415 of 2025 (O&M)
RSA No.3416 of 2023 (O&M)

            [for Naresh Sandhu and Daljinder Kaur Boparai]
            appellant Nos.1 & 2 (in RSA-2351-2019),
            respondent Nos.1 & 2 (in RSA-815-2019) and
            respondent Nos.2 & 3 (in RSA-415-2025).

            Mr. Kulvir Narwal and Mr. B.S. Chahal, Advocates
            [for Indira Gill]
            appellant No.3 (in RSA-2351-2019),
            respondent No.4 (in RSA-415-2025) and
            respondent No.3 (in RSA-815-2019).

            Ms. Promila Nain, Sr. Advocate, with
            Mr. Abhishek Rawal, Advocate
            [for Sonu Mann]
            the appellant (in RSA-415-2025),
            respondent No.2 (in RSA-3416-2023),
            respondent No.3 (in RSA-2351-2019) and
            respondent No.4 (in RSA-815-2019).

            Mr. G.S. Bha4a and Mr. Manoj K. Sharma, Advocates,
            [for Fateh Jang Singh Chahal]
            appellant (in RSA-815-2019 and RSA-3416-2023),
            respondent No.1 (in RSA-415-2025) and
            respondent No.2 (in RSA-2351-2019).

            Mr. Kabir Sarin, Advocate and
            Mr. R.D. Gupta, Advocate
            [for Varinder Kaur Mann]
            respondent No.1 (in RSAs-815-2019, RSA-2351-2019 and
            RSA-3416-2023) and respondent No.5 (in RSA-415-2025).

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present judgment disposes of four Regular Second Appeals, the details whereof are set out herein below.

2.1 RSA No. 2351 of 2019 & RSA No. 815 of 2019 arise out of Civil Suit No. 2718/1523 of 2013 4tled "Varinder Kaur Mann vs. Fateh Jung Singh Chahal

Page N: 2 of 50 Pages 2 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

and others", which was decreed by the Court of Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh on 19.02.2016. Two separate appeals, namely Civil Appeal No. 145 of 2016, and Civil Appeal No. 157 of 2016, were preferred by diﬀerent defendants. Both appeals were dismissed vide common judgment dated 21.08.2018 rendered by the learned Addi4onal District Judge, Chandigarh. Aggrieved thereby, the de- fendants have ﬁled (i) RSA No. 2351 of 2019 4tled "Naresh Sandhu and others vs. Varinder Kaur Mann and others" and (ii) RSA No. 815 of 2019 4tled "Fateh Jung Singh Chahal vs. Varinder Kaur Mann and others".

2.2 RSA No. 3416 of 2023 4tled "Fateh Jung Singh Chahal vs. Varinder Kaur Mann and another" arises from Civil Suit No. 3893 of 2012/2013 4tled "Fateh Jung Singh Chahal vs. Varinder Kaur Mann and another", which was dismissed by the Court of Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.2017. The appeal preferred there against, i.e., Civil Appeal No. 229 of 2017 by plain4ﬀ of the case Fateh Jung Singh Chahal was dismissed on 22.08.2023 by the learned Addi4onal District Judge, Chandigarh. The present Regular Second Appeal has, thus, been ﬁled against concurrent ﬁndings of fact.

2.3 RSA No. 415 of 2025 - Yet another suit, namely Civil Suit No. 1475 of 2013 4tled "Sonu Mann vs. Fateh Jung Singh Chahal and others", was ins4tuted before the Court of Addi4onal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagraon, which came to be dismissed on 27.09.2022. The appeal preferred by the plain4ﬀ of the case Sonu Mann, i.e., Civil Appeal No. 13588 of 2022 was dismissed by the learned Ad- di4onal District Judge, Ludhiana on 29.11.2024. Aggrieved by the concurrent ﬁnd- ings, the plain4ﬀ has preferred present RSA No. 415 of 2025 4tled "Sonu Mann vs. Fateh Jung Singh Chahal and others".

3. The dispute in all the aforesaid appeals arises inter se amongst real siblings -- the children of late Sardar Daljeet Singh Chahal, Advocate of this Court, who expired on 17.10.2006. He was survived by one son, namely, Fateh Jung Singh Chahal, and ﬁve daughters, namely Naresh Sandhu, Daljinder Kaur Boparai,

Page N: 3 of 50 Pages 3 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

Indira Gill, Varinder Kaur Mann and Sonu Mann, who cons4tute his natural Class-I legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, his wife having pre-deceased him in the year 1992. All the children were married by late Sardar Daljeet Singh Chahal during his life 4me.

4. The core controversy in all the suits and appeals centres around the validity and genuineness of an unregistered holographic Will dated 01.08.1994. The document comprises twenty handwriEen pages accompanied by a site plan, and purports to bear the signatures of two aEes4ng witnesses, namely Ms. Ravinder Kaur Nihal Singh Wala, Advocate, and Ms. Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, Advoc- ate.

5. Before adver4ng to the pleadings of the par4es, the evidence led in the respec4ve suits, the issues framed, and the ﬁndings returned by the Courts be- low, it would be appropriate to reproduce the aforesaid Will, which reads as un- der:--

"WILL

I, DALJIT SINGH CHAHAL, Advocate son of late Sardar Sahib Sardar Jhanda Singh Advocate resident of Bungalow No.41 Sector No. 4 Chandigarh aged about 70 years hereby revoke all my previous Wills and codicils and declare this to be my last Will and testament.

I have with my own earnings from the profession and without the assistance of any ancestral property purchased the site plot No.37 Street G Sector No.4 Chandigarh measuring 2533 square yards (5 Kanal and 1.3 Marlas) for a sum of Rs.12132/- (Rs. Twelve thousand one hundred and thirty two only) from the Governor of Punjab vide sale deed dated the 21st day of September 1956 which was alloEed to me vide Memo No. 55101 dated 11.11.1954 No.3/RP/1033 dated Chandigarh Capital the 16-5-1952 and its possession was handed over to me on 17-10-1955 and I submiEed plan for construc4on of Permanent Residen4al Building on Plot No.37 Street G Sector-No. 4 Chandigarh which was sanc4oned by the Chief Administrator Chandigarh (C) vide Memo No.53343/RP/1033-A dated

Page N: 4 of 50 Pages 4 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

27-10-1955 and constructed the bungalow (previous No.2-G and present No. 41) on plot No.37 street G sector No.4 Chandigarh with my own earnings from the profession without the assistance of any ancestral property and with a loan of Rs. 17,000/- (Rs. Seventeen thousand only) under the High Income Group Housing Scheme (HIGH-C/39) advanced to me on 13-1-1956 regarding which Security-cum- Mortgage deed was executed on 17-8-1957 and registered on 23-8-1957 which loan along with interest was returned by me with my earnings from the profession. The building on plot No.37 Street G Sector No. 4 Chandigarh was completed and permission to occupy it was granted by the Administrator Capital Project Chandigarh (c) vide Memo No.22859/RP-1033-A dated 2/5 April 1956 subject to removal of a few defects which were removed within the 4me granted and ﬁnally permission of the occupa4on and use of the building on Plot No.37 Street G Sector No. 4 Chandigarh which at that 4me was numbered as Bungalow No.2-G Sector-4 Chandigarh and was later re-numbered as Bungalow No. 41 Sector No. 4 Chandigarh was granted by the Estate Oﬃcer exercising the powers of the Chief Administrator Capital Project Chandigarh vide Memorandum No. 11577/RP/1033-A dated 10-8-1965.

My wife Sardarni Balbir Kaur has died on 27-2-1992. I have ﬁve daughters i.e., Naresh, Daljinder Kaur, Indra, Virinder Kaur, Sonu Advocate and one son Fateh Jang Singh Chahal advocate Bungalow No. 41 Sector No. 4 Chandigarh.

I have performed the marriages of all my ﬁve daughters who are now Mrs. Naresh Sandhu, Mrs. Daljinder Kaur Boparai, Mrs. Indra Gill, Mrs. Virinder Kaur Mann and Mrs. Sonu Mann advocate with great pomp and show and have spent huge amounts on their marriages and have given them substan4al jewellery, clothes, furniture and other customary presents and they are happily married in very rich and well to do families.

I also own Joint Hindu Family property (Co-parcenary property) in the shape of land situated at Agwar Gujjran Jagraon District Ludhiana and at village Ghalib Kalan Tehsil Jagraon District Ludhiana in which my son Fateh Jang Singh Chahal advocate Bungalow 41 Sector-4 Chandigarh acquired interest to the extent of half share by birth. I bequeath my half share in the joint Hindu Family property (Co-parcenary property) in the shape of land situated at Agwar Gujjran

Page N: 5 of 50 Pages 5 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

Jagraon District Ludhiana and at village Ghalib Kalan Tehsil Jagraon District Ludhiana to my son Fateh Jang Singh Chahal advocate Bungalow No. 41 Sector No. 4 Chandigarh.

Li4ga4on regarding some Joint Hindu Family property (Co-parcenary property) in the shape of land situated at Agwar Gujjran Tehsil Jagraon District Ludhiana and at village Ghalib Kalan Tehsil Jagraon District Ludhiana is going on between myself and my son Fateh Jang Singh Chahal advocate on one side and my brothers and sisters on the other side as my brothers and sisters have tried to usurp the land of my son Sardar Fateh Jang Singh Chahal, Advocate Bungalow No. 41, Sector No. 4 Chandigarh on the basis of a collusive decree to which my son Sardar Fateh Jang Singh Chahal Advocate Bungalow No. 41 Sector No.4 Chandigarh was not a party.

Keeping in view the dissensions in the family and with a view to avoid disputes and li4ga4on among my heirs regarding my house Bungalow No.41 Sector No. 4 Chandigarh which is my self-acquired and separate property and of which I am the sole and absolute owner and with the object of assuring that my only son Sardar Fateh Jang Singh Chahal Advocate Bungalow No.41 Sector No.4 Chandigarh and his descendants whether natural or adopted may con4nue to live in style to which they are en4tled in view of the very high status of the family and with the object of assuring the best educa4on, performance of marriage and supplemen4ng the income of the descendants of my son so that they may maintain the high standard of living, I, DALJIT SINGH CHAHAL Advocate Bungalow No.41 Sector No. 4 Chandigarh while in possession of full senses and being of sound disposing mind, of my own free will and without any coercion hereby make a Will and hereby create a trust of my house Bungalow No.41 Sector No. 4 Chandigarh along with the plot No.37 Sector No. 4 Chandigarh measuring 2,533 square yards (5 Kanals 1.3 Marlas) on which it is constructed including the garage, the three servant quarters with the aEached bath room and water closet the appurtenant court yards, lawns and open spaces, all my bank accounts, UTI cer4ﬁcates, UTI monthly income funds, Public Provident Fund, Post Oﬃce Savings Bank account, Na4onal Savings Cer4ﬁcates which trust will be known as "DALJIT SINGH CHAHAL Advocate Private Trust Chandigarh" (hereinaLer referred to as "the

Page N: 6 of 50 Pages

6 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

Trust") and all the amounts of the accounts men4oned above standing in my name will cons4tute "the Trust Fund" and will be deposited in the name of the Trust. I appoint my two youngest daughters, Mrs. Virinder Kaur Mann wife of Colonel PPS Mann resident of Bungalow No. 41 Sector No.4 Chandigarh and Mrs. Sonu Mann advocate wife of Binny Mann resident of village Tappa Khara District Faridkot as Trustees of the Trust and hereby bequeath at my demise my house Bungalow No. 41 Sector No.4 Chandigarh (hereinaLer referred to as "the Trust Property") and all my bank accounts UTI cer4ﬁcates, UTI monthly income funds, Public Provident Fund, Post Oﬃce Savings Bank account, Na4onal Savings Cer4ﬁcates and the amount of compensa4on to be received from the Ludhiana Improvement Trust Ludhiana for the acquired land (hereinaLer referred to as "the Trust Fund) to the Trustees for the beneﬁt of my son Sardar Fateh Jang Singh Chahal Advocate Bungalow No. 41 Sector No.4 Chandigarh and his and his descendants whether natural or adopted who will be the beneﬁciaries of the Trust.

As my daughter-in-law Kanwal Inder Kaur Chahal wife of Sardar Fateh Jang Singh Chahal Advocate Bungalow No. 41 Sector No. 4 Chandigarh has been most disrespecNul and disobedient so I speciﬁcally declare that Kanwal Inder Kaur Chahal will under no circumstances be the be beneﬁciary of the Trust though she will be en4tled to reside in a part of the Trust Property.

As my son Sardar Fateh Jang Singh Chahal Advocate Bungalow No. 41 Sector No.4 Chandigarh will succeed to the whole joint Hindu Family property (co- parcenary property) in the shape of land situated at Agwar Gujjran Jagraon District Ludhiana and at village Ghalib Kalan Tehsil Jagraon District Ludhiana from which he will be deriving considerable income and will also be deriving income by way of interest on the substan4al amount deposited in his name so the Trustees will pay to him nominal amount of Rs 1000/- (Rs. One thousand only) per mensem by crossed cheque drawn in favour of Sardar Fateh Jang Singh Chahal Advocate Bungalow No.41 Sector No.4 Chandigarh on the ﬁrst of every month but in no case will the amount be paid in advance or in lump sum and this amount will be paid out of the income accruing from the interest on the Trust Fund.

The Trust Fund will be invested in Public Provident Fund, Unit Trust of India Cer4ﬁcates, Unit Trust of India monthly scheme, Na4onal Savings

Page N: 7 of 50 Pages 7 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

Cer4ﬁcates and other schemes of the Unit Trust of India or Post Oﬃce Schemes from which the Trust may receive the highest rate of interest and in which the safety of the principal amount is assured. Under no circumstances will the Trust Fund be invested in shares of companies or other specula4ve ac4vi4es. Half amount of the annual interest accruing from the investment of the Trust Fund will be re-invested in the above-men4oned schemes giving ﬁrst preference to the investment in the Public Provident Fund in which the maximum amount permissible in each ﬁnancial year will be invested and the balance to be invested in the other schemes men4oned above so that the Trust Fund may keeping growing and so generate more income by the accrual of the increased amount of interest.

The remaining half amount of the annual interest will be deposited in the savings account of a Bank in the name of the Trust. Out of this amount an amount of Rs 5000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) per annum will be ear-marked for the repair and maintenance of the Trust Property and if the whole or part of this amount is unspent, the unspent amount will be carried forward to the amount of Rs 5000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) to be reserved for the purpose the next ﬁnancial some year and so on. This amount may be invested in a Fixed Deposit in the name of the Trust for one year so that in case of any emergency for carrying out a major repair the necessary amount may be readily available by encashment of one or more Fixed Deposit Receipt. It is made clear that this annually recurring amount of Rs 5000/- (Rs Five thousand only) is meant only for carrying out the repairs and maintenance of the building of the Trust Property including the repair and pain4ng of woodwork of doors, windows and ven4lators and of steel doors, gates and fences and replacing the broken glass panes and the water and sanitary systems. This amount will not however be available for the repair and maintenance of electric ﬁOngs or electric appliances which will be the responsibility of the user thereof.

ALer deduc4ng the amount of Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) men4oned above the balance amount will be at the disposal of the Trustees for making the monthly payment of Rs 1000/- (Re One thousand only) to Sardar Fateh Jang Singh Chahal Advocate Bungalow No.41 Sector 4 Chandigarh as a beneﬁciary

Page N: 8 of 50 Pages 8 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

of the Trust. Out of the remaining amount the Trustees will pay the income-tax, property Tax, house tax and any other tax to which the Trust Property or the Trust Fund may be liable. The Trust Property is unencumbered and the Trustees will have no authority to encumber the Trust Property under any circumstances. The Trustees will have no authority to alienate the Trust Property by way of sale, mortgage, lease or in any other way or create any charge on it for any purpose whatsoever or under any circumstances. It is clariﬁed that the payment of the electricity bill and the water bill will be the responsibility of the user. The recurring unspent amount will be carried over to the next ﬁnancial year and so on so that it will keep accumula4ng and this amount may also be invested in a Fixed Deposit in a Bank for a period of one year so that in an emergency one or more Fixed Deposit Receipt may be available for being readily encashed. This amount will be at the disposal of the Trustees for carrying out the objec4ves of the Trust such as incurring expenses on the upbringing, educa4on and marriage of the beneﬁciaries which the Trustees may deem reasonable keeping in view the interests of all the beneﬁciaries as both the Trustees may decide. If there is diﬀerence of opinion between Mrs. Virinder Kaur Mann Trustee and Mrs. Sonu Mann Advocate Trustee, then Mrs. Virinder Kaur Mann Trustee will have the cas4ng vote. The female beneﬁciaries in the presence of the male beneﬁciaries will cease to be beneﬁciaries on their marriage. If there are no male beneﬁciaries then the female beneﬁciaries will con4nue to be beneﬁciaries of the trust. If unfortunately there are no descendants either natural or adopted then the descendants of my two daughters Mrs. Virinder Kaur Mann and Mrs. Sonu Mann Advocate will be the beneﬁciaries of the Trust.

If a post of Trustee falls vacant then it may be ﬁlled by an adult descendant of the two Trustees Mrs. Virinder Kaur Mann and Mrs. Sonu Mann Advocate. Under no circumstances my three eldest daughters Mrs. Naresh Sandhu, Mrs. Daljinder Kaur Boparai, Mrs. Indira Gill or their descendants will be the beneﬁciaries of the Trust or be appointed Trustees.

I also bequeath all my household goods, crockery, crockery, furniture library, telephone, my three cars, gun, revolver, two riﬂes, two type-writers to my only son Sardar Fateh Jang Singh Chahal advocate Bungalow No. 41 Sector No.4

Page N: 9 of 50 Pages 9 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

Chandigarh who will become their sole and absolute owner only at my demise while I shall remain their owner during my life-4me and will con4nue to enjoy their use and all the rights therein which I now have.

My daughter Virinder Kaur Mann and her two sons Aman Pal Singh Mann and Shak4 Pal Singh Mann who are residing with me are looking aLer me and I am very pleased with their services and have great aﬀec4on for them. I bequeath my colour T. V. and the receiver to them on my demise. However I will con4nue to be their owner during my life-4me and will con4nue to enjoy their use and all the rights in them which I now have.

ALer my demise my daughter Mrs. Virinder Kaur Mann Trustee and her two sons Aman Pal Singh Mann and Shak4 Pal Singh Mann will have the right of residence in the por4on shown as ABCD in the aEached plan of Bungalow No. 41 Sector No.4 Chandigarh (the Trust Property) which is signed by me, comprising the bed room, aEached bath-room, the Indian water closet, the big verandah measuring 10' x 40', verandah having stairs, the Mam4 of the stairs, the kitchen and the aEached enclosed courtyard which is in their possession. They will also have the right to use the open space along the outer wall of the courtyard and the kitchen measuring about 25'-6'' x 125' shown as EFGH in the above-men4oned aEached plan of my house Bungalow No. 41 Sector No. 4 Chandigarh (the Trust Property). On my demise my daughter Mrs. Virinder Kaur Mann Trustee and her two sons Aman Pal Singh Mann and Shak4 Pal Singh Mann will also take possession of the suite comprising one big bed room, dressing room and the aEached bathroom as CJKLMNP and the ar4cles and furniture therein which is in my occupa4on and use and will have the right to use and reside in it also. My youngest daughter Mrs. Sonu Mann advocate and her son Umaid Singh also have the right to reside as a Trustee in the por4on of the Trust Property in which Mrs. Virinder Kaur Mann Trustee has been given the right to reside. Mrs. Sonu Mann advocate Trustee will also have the right to use the library if she wants to prac4ce The will has been scribed by me and is in my own handwri4ng. In witness whereof I have signed this will in the presence of the two aEes4ng witnesses who have also signed in my presence.

Page N: 10 of 50 Pages 10 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

Chandigarh Dated First August 1994.

Sd/- Daljit Singh Chahal Advocate Testator

1. Witness :

Sd/- (Ravinder Kaur Nihalsinghwala), Advocate

House No. 708, Sector 11-B, Chandigarh 1.8.94

2. Witness :

Sd/- (Harpreet Kaur Dhillon), Advocate

House No. 50, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh"

First Suit -- CS-21/2008 (Re-numbered as CS-1475 of 2013) 6.1 Plain ﬀ's Case : The ﬁrst suit, originally ﬁled as CS-21/2008 and later re-numbered as CS-1475 of 2013, was ins4tuted on 23.09.2008 before the Jagraon Courts by Ms. Varinder Kaur and Ms. Sonu Mann in respect of agricultural land situated in villages Galib Kalan and Agwan Gujjran, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhi- ana. The plain4ﬀs pleaded that the par4es cons4tuted a joint Hindu family with late Sardar Daljeet Singh Chahal as Karta, and that the suit land was ancestral co- parcenary property, which had devolved upon him from his father, Shri Jhanda Singh Chahal. They claimed birth-right in the property and asserted equal copar- cenary shares therein.

6.2 It was further alleged that by an unregistered Will dated 01.08.1994, the testator had illegally bequeathed the suit land exclusively in favour of Fateh Jang Singh Chahal, and on the basis thereof, muta4ons had been sanc4oned in his favour. The plain4ﬀs challenged the orders dated 28.08.2004 passed by the rev- enue authori4es sanc4oning the muta4ons, and sought a declara4on that the suit property had devolved upon all the children of the deceased by natural succes- sion. A decree of declara4on and joint possession to the extent of a ⅓ composite share (i.e., 1/6th share each) was prayed for.

Page N: 11 of 50 Pages 11 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

6.3 During pendency of the suit, Varinder Kaur Mann moved an applica- 4on and was transposed as Defendant No. 5 vide order dated 13.03.2014.

7. Stand of Defendant No. 1 -- Fateh Jang Singh Chahal : In his amended wriEen statement, Defendant No. 1 denied that the suit land was ances- tral or coparcenary property and asserted that, pursuant to judgment dated 24.09.1997 of this High Court, Sardar Daljeet Singh Chahal became its exclusive owner in possession. Defendant N: 1 relied upon the Will dated 01.08.1994, under which the suit property was bequeathed to him, and further pleaded that the validity of the Will had already been upheld by the Civil Court at Chandigarh on 19.02.2016 and aﬃrmed by the First Appellate Court on 21.08.2018. He defended the muta4ons sanc4oned in his favour as legal and valid.

8. Stand of Defendants No. 2 to 4 -- Naresh Sandhu, Davinder Kaur Boparai & Indira Gill : Defendants No. 2 to 4 ﬁled a joint wriEen statement broadly suppor4ng the stand of Defendant No. 1. They too denied the coparcen- ary character of the suit property and pleaded that, in view of the judgment dated 24.09.1997, the testator was the exclusive owner, who validly executed the Will dated 01.08.1994 in favour of Defendant No. 1. The impugned muta4ons were ac- cordingly jus4ﬁed.

9. Stand of Defendant No. 5 -- Varinder Kaur Mann (Transposed PlainCﬀ) : ALer transposi4on as Defendant No. 5, Varinder Kaur Mann resiled from the earlier plea of coparcenary property and adopted the defence of Defend- ant No. 1 and Defendants No. 2 to 4, asser4ng that the suit land was the exclusive property of the testator under the judgment dated 24.09.1997 and had been val- idly bequeathed to Fateh Jang Singh Chahal under the Will dated 01.08.1994.

10. Findings of the Courts Below : Upon framing issues and apprecia4ng the evidence, the Trial Court held that, in view of judgment dated 24.09.1997 (Ex.D-1), Sardar Daljeet Singh Chahal was the exclusive owner in possession of the suit land and that it did not retain the character of ancestral coparcenary property.

Page N: 12 of 50 Pages 12 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

The Will dated 01.08.1994 was found to be legal and valid, and the muta4ons sanc4oned on its basis were upheld. The suit was accordingly dismissed on 27.09.2022.

11. The appeal preferred by Sonu Mann was dismissed by the First Appel- late Court on 29.11.2024, aﬃrming the concurrent ﬁndings. Aggrieved thereby, she has ﬁled RSA No. 415 of 2025.

Second Suit -- Civil Suit No. 2718/1523 of 2013 (Earlier Suit No. 182 of 2011)

12. The second suit, originally ﬁled as Suit No. 182 of 2011 and later re- numbered as Civil Suit No. 2718/1523 of 2013, was ins4tuted by Ms. Varinder Kaur Mann against her brother Mr. Fateh Jang Singh Chahal and her four sisters. The plain4ﬀ sought a declara4on that the unregistered holographic Will dated 01.08.1994 executed by late Sardar Daljit Singh Chahal was his last, legal and valid Will, and that the par4es were en4tled to the beneﬁts thereunder, including House No. 41, Sector 4, Chandigarh, which was stated to vest in a trust created by the testator. She also prayed for a decree of permanent injunc4on restraining de- fendants No. 2 to 4 -- Naresh Sandhu, Daljinder Kaur Boparai and Indira Gill, from interfering in her lawful possession of speciﬁed por4ons of the house.

13. Plain ﬀ's Case : According to the plain4ﬀ, she was married in 1984 and stayed with in-laws for a few years. However, aLer the death of their mother in 1992, the testator requested her to shiL from Bassi Pathana to Chandigarh to reside with and support him. She claimed to have lived with him in a separate por- 4on of the house, served him along with her sons un4l his death, and thereaLer con4nued in possession of the por4on earlier occupied by him. As per the Will, "Daljit Singh Chahal Advocate Private Trust, Chandigarh" was stated to have been created, with the plain4ﬀ and Ms. Sonu Mann as trustees, the estate ves4ng in the trust, and a cas4ng vote conferred upon the plain4ﬀ in case of disagreement between the trustees. The Will excluded defendants No. 2 to 4 and their descend- ants from any share in the estate.

Page N: 13 of 50 Pages 13 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

14. Stand of Defendant No. 1 -- Fateh Jang Singh Chahal : Defendant No. 1 did not dispute the execu4on of the Will. His defence was that under the Will, the trust assets, including House No. 41 as well as bank deposits and other ﬁnancial instruments, were to beneﬁt him and his descendants alone. He alleged that the plain4ﬀ had, without the knowledge of co-trustee Sonu Mann, wrongfully withdrawn substan4al trust funds for personal use, thereby disqualifying herself from con4nuing as trustee. He denied that the plain4ﬀ shiLed to the house to look aLer the testator, asser4ng instead that she had taken refuge there due to matrimonial discord, and that the recitals against his wife in the Will were pro- cured at the plain4ﬀ's instance.

15. Stand of Defendants No. 2 to 4 -- Naresh Sandhu, Daljinder Kaur Boparai & Indira Gill : These Defendants ﬁled a joint wriEen statement dispu4ng the genuineness and validity of the Will. They contended that the original Will had not been produced, that the document was unnatural and suspicious in depriving three daughters of inheritance, and that the alleged private trust was neither cre- ated nor acted upon. They also asserted inconsistency in earlier li4ga4on allegedly ini4ated by the plain4ﬀ and defendant No. 5 propounding another Will and claim- ing succession by natural inheritance.

16. Stand of Defendant No. 5 -- Sonu Mann : Defendant No. 5 did not dispute execu4on of the Will, but denied the plain4ﬀ's claim to a cas4ng vote and alleged lack of transparency regarding opera4on of accounts and trust funds. She stated that both trustees had jointly applied for transfer of the house in 2006 pur- suant to the Will, but the transfer could not be eﬀected due to procedural defects.

17. Findings of the Trial Court : Upon framing issues and apprecia4ng the evidence, the Trial Court held that the Will dated 01.08.1994 stood duly proved in accordance with law. It observed that the earlier li4ga4on relied upon by the de- fendants did not concern the suit property. The suit was decreed on 19.02.2016, declaring the Will to be the last valid testament of the testator and recognising the

Page N: 14 of 50 Pages 14 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

beneﬁciaries' rights in respect of House No. 41 through the trust. Defendants No. 2 to 4 were restrained from interfering with the plain4ﬀs' possession or taking for- cible possession except in due course of law.

18. First Appeals and Present RSAs : Two appeals, one by Defendant No. 1 and another by Defendants No. 2 to 4, were dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide common judgment dated 21.08.2018, upholding the decree of the Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby:

x Defendant No. 1 has ﬁled RSA No. 815 of 2019, and

x Defendants No. 2 to 4 have ﬁled RSA No. 2351 of 2019.

Third Suit -- Civil Suit No. 3893 of 2013

19. The third suit, Civil Suit No. 3893 of 2013, was ins4tuted by Fateh Jang Singh Chahal (the beneﬁciary under the Will) against Varinder Kaur Mann and Sonu Mann (the named trustees) seeking a declara4on that the defendants had forfeited their right to func4on as trustees of the "Daljeet Singh Chahal Advocate Private Trust, Chandigarh", created under the holographic Will dated 01.08.1994 of late Sardar Daljeet Singh Chahal.

20.1 Plain ﬀ's Case : The plain4ﬀ alleged that the defendants, par4cularly Defendant No. 1 Varinder Kaur Mann, had failed to act in accordance with the wishes, direc4ons and condi4ons contained in the Will, and had misused and mis- appropriated trust property and funds for their personal beneﬁt as well as for their family members, thereby rendering themselves liable to removal as trustees.

20.2 Referring to the recitals of the Will, the plain4ﬀ pleaded that the trustees had neither paid him the monthly amount of ₹1,000 from trust income nor carried out repairs of House No. 41, Sector 4, Chandigarh; that trust funds were not invested as contemplated; and that despite repeated requests, the de- fendants had neither furnished informa4on nor rendered accounts. He alleged

Page N: 15 of 50 Pages 15 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

that no bank account had been opened in the name of the trust and that the trust- ees were in breach of their ﬁduciary du4es.

20.3 The plain4ﬀ further sought a decree of permanent/mandatory injunc- 4on restraining the defendants from represen4ng themselves as trustees, from dealing with or aliena4ng the trust property, or from opera4ng or withdrawing any trust funds. He also prayed for appointment of new trustees including himself, and for rendi4on of accounts from 17.10.2006 (the date of the testator's death), when the trust was stated to have come into existence under the Will.

21. Stand of Defendant No. 1 -- Varinder Kaur Mann : Defendant No. 1 raised preliminary objec4ons regarding maintainability, valua4on and mul4plicity of proceedings, referring to the pendency of the Chandigarh suit. She asserted that she had made bona ﬁde eﬀorts to act in terms of the Will, denied having op- erated any trust accounts or received any trust funds, and therefore, disputed any obliga4on to pay ₹1,000 per month or incur repair expenses. She stated that al- though the Will men4oned various deposits, bonds and accounts, the originals re- mained with the plain4ﬀ, and that muta4on of House No. 41 on the basis of the Will could not be eﬀected despite eﬀorts, partly due to lack of coopera4on of the co-trustee. She denied misuse of funds and sought dismissal of the suit.

22. Stand of Defendant No. 2 -- Sonu Mann : Defendant No. 2 also chal- lenged the maintainability of the suit and alleged absence of cause of ac4on, con- troverted the allega4ons of misappropria4on and breach, and prayed for dis- missal.

23. Findings of the Courts Below : ALer framing issues and evalua4ng the evidence, the Trial Court held that the plain4ﬀ had failed to prove misappropri- a4on or usurpa4on of trust funds by the defendants. It further observed that al- though the defendants had been named as trustees under the Will, the Will did not contain any s4pula4on authorising removal of a trustee on the ground of al- leged misuse of funds; and even assuming some ﬁnancial irregularity, such allega-

Page N: 16 of 50 Pages 16 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

4on alone would not jus4fy for removal from trusteeship. The Court also held that the plain4ﬀ was not en4tled to rendi4on of accounts from the defendants. The suit was accordingly dismissed on 29.03.2017.

24. The appeal ﬁled by the plain4ﬀ was dismissed by the learned Addi- 4onal District Judge, Chandigarh on 22.08.2023, thereby aﬃrming the ﬁndings of the Trial Court.

Aggrieved by the concurrent ﬁndings, the plain4ﬀ has ﬁled RSA No. 3416 of 2023.

25. It is in the above background that all four Regular Second Appeals are now before this Court for joint adjudica4on.

26. Ld. Counsel for all par4es have been heard at length and the record has been carefully perused.

27.1 On behalf of appellants (of RSA N: 2351 of 2019) - defendants - Naresh Sandhu & Daljinder Kaur Boparai, Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, learned Senior Ad- vocate, has assailed both the due execu4on of the Will dated 01.08.1994 (Ex.P2/1) as well as the executability of the disposi4ons contained therein. It is submiEed that the Will has not been proved in accordance with the mandate of Sec4on 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Sec4on 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The original Will, though stated to have been produced during evidence, was never placed on the record, and the Courts below have relied only upon an exhib- ited copy, which, according to learned counsel, cannot subs4tute statutory proof of execu4on. AEen4on is invited to the fact that every page of the Will is not signed, that the aEes4ng witnesses were junior members of the Bar, and that no reasons are forthcoming in the document to jus4fy exclusion of three natural heirs; all of which, it is urged, cons4tute suspicious circumstances rendering the Will vague, uncertain and unnatural.

27.2 Learned senior counsel further contends that aﬃdavits (Ex. D-4 and D-

6) earlier furnished before the Estate Oﬃcer by Varinder Kaur Mann and Sonu

Page N: 17 of 50 Pages 17 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

Mann appear to refer to another Will of the same date, whereas the Will now pro-

pounded contains only trust disposi4ons, thereby crea4ng ambiguity as to which Will was intended to operate. The opening recital in the Will states that all prior Wills stand revoked; but, no evidence has been led as to the number or nature of such earlier Wills, which, according to counsel, further deepens the suspicion sur- rounding the document.

27.3 It is also urged that the plain4ﬀ of the case, Varinder Kaur Mann, is disen4tled to maintain the suit inasmuch as, in the Jagraon li4ga4on (Ex. D-9), she herself challenged the very same Will as fraudulent; that she cannot now approb- ate and reprobate, and is barred by estoppel and acquiescence.

27.4 Learned senior counsel further contends that although the Will pur- ports to create a private trust, neither the consent of the named trustees was ob- tained nor is the purpose or object of the trust clearly spelt out. Placing reliance on Sec4ons 89 and 92 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, it is urged that where a testamentary disposi4on is uncertain or indeﬁnite, the same is rendered void. Reli- ance is placed on the decisions reported in AIR 1957 Bombay 218 and AIR 1959 Andhra Pradesh 448.

27.5 In order to demonstrate that the trust clauses in the present case are vague and uncertain, learned counsel points to the following circumstances:

i. that the alleged private trust was never in fact brought into existence and no steps were taken for obtaining probate or leEers of administra4on;

ii. that the plain4ﬀ herself withdrew the en4re amount forming part of the al-

leged Trust Fund for her personal use, which withdrawal stands admiEed by her;

iii. that the purpose and object of the trust are not deﬁned in the Will; and

Page N: 18 of 50 Pages 18 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

iv. that the Will does not indicate how the disposi4ons are intended to beneﬁt any of the legal heirs or how the trust, if at all created, is expected to func-

4on or subserve any iden4ﬁable object.

On the strength of these submissions, it is urged that the trust declara4on in the Will suﬀers from uncertainty and indeﬁniteness, and is therefore void in law.

27.6 Learned senior counsel also challenges the trust clauses by placing re- liance on various provisions of the Indian Trusts Act and the Transfer of Property Act. It is urged that the trust is uncertain and indeﬁnite; that there is conﬂict between the interests of trustee and beneﬁciary; that u4lisa4on of assets by a trustee demonstrates adverse 4tle, and that the scheme violates ﬁduciary norms contained in Sec4ons 6, 9, 10, 14, 48 and 51 of the Trusts Act. Reference is further made to Sec4ons 13 to 21 of the Transfer of Property Act to submit that the dis- posi4ons oﬀend the rule against perpetuity and do not specify how ves4ng would operate upon exhaus4on of the beneﬁciaries. It is ﬁnally urged that even one of the trustees has admiEed having u4lised movable funds for personal investment, which shows that the Will and trust were never genuinely implemented, and that the estate, therefore, deserves to be divided equally among all heirs.

27.7 Thus, in the alterna4ve, it is argued that even assuming execu4on of the Will to be proved, the same is in-executable, as the private trust contemplated therein was never created or registered, no probate or leEers of administra4on were sought, the purpose and acceptance of the trust are not clear, and the al- leged trustees themselves have u4lised the funds for personal beneﬁt. It is conten- ded that the trust has never been acted upon, and the estate must, therefore, de- volve by natural succession.

28. Suppor4ng the above submissions, Ms. Promila Nain, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Sonu Mann, contends that the plain4ﬀ Varinder Mann cannot be permiEed to blow hot and cold, having earlier challenged the Will in the Jagraon li4ga4on and now asser4ng its validity in the Chandigarh suit. Referring to

Page N: 19 of 50 Pages 19 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

the revenue extracts produced in the Jagraon proceedings, it is urged that the ag- ricultural land originally devolved through lineage and bore the character of copar- cenary property. Reliance is placed upon earlier li4ga4on, where the property nuc- leus was allegedly treated as coparcenary, and it is submiEed that the par4es can- not now resile from such admissions. If the Will is found to be contrary to law, the en4re estate, it is argued, must devolve equally under Sec4ons 6 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

29.1 Conversely, Mr. Kabir Sarin & Mr. R.D.Gupta, learned counsels ap- pearing for the respondent-plain4ﬀ Varinder Kaur Mann, supports the concurrent ﬁndings and submits that due execu4on of the Will has been proved through the tes4mony of one aEes4ng witness, namely Harpreet Kaur, Advocate, and by the admission of Fateh Jang Singh Chahal regarding the handwri4ng of the testator. The Courts at Chandigarh as well as Jagraon have concurrently upheld the genu- ineness of the Will. It is urged that the Will is a holographic document, and that the principles applicable to such instruments stand sa4sﬁed.

29.2 By referring to Sec4ons 11, 23 and 31 of the Trusts Act, learned coun- sel submits that the crea4on, object and administra4on of the trust are clearly deﬁned and leave no ambiguity. The diﬀering stand taken in the Jagraon suit is ex- plained on the ground that the dispute there pertained only to the nature of the agricultural land and not to the validity of the Will as a whole. It is further submit- ted that defendant Fateh Jang Singh Chahal himself admiEed execu4on of the Will and only alleged misuse of funds, that defendants 2 to 4 Naresh Sandhu, Daljinder Kaur Boparai and Indira Gill alone denied execu4on of the Will. It is pointed out that no sugges4on was put in cross-examina4on dispu4ng the handwri4ng or sig- nature of the testator. There has been no disclaimer by either the trustees or the beneﬁciary, and therefore, Sec4ons 9 and 10 of the Trusts Act are said to apply. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanta Yadav v. Om Prakash, AIR 2019 (SC) 5556, learned counsel submits that probate is not compulsory in respect of Wills opera4ve in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh.

Page N: 20 of 50 Pages 20 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

30. Mr. Kulvir Narwal, learned counsel for Smt. Indira Gill, adopts the sub- missions advanced on behalf of the appellants Smt. Naresh Sandhu & Smt. Daljinder Kaur Boparai.

31. Substan al Ques ons of Law : Having regard to the pleadings, ﬁnd- ings of the Courts below, and arguments addressed, the following substan4al ques4ons of law arise for considera4on:

x Whether the concurrent ﬁndings of the Courts below, holding that the Will stands duly proved, suﬀer from perversity or misreading of evidence war- ran4ng interference in second appeal?

x Whether the concurrent ﬁndings of the Courts below, holding that the land of two villages in Tehsil Jagraon was exclusive ownership of testator and that the same stands validly bequeathed to son Fateh Jang Singh Chahal suﬀer & upholding the sanc4oning of muta4on on that basis, suﬀer from perversity or misreading of evidence warran4ng interference in second ap- peal?

x Whether the Courts below were jus4ﬁed in construing the holographic Will dated 01.08.1994 as crea4ng a valid testamentary trust in respect of House No. 41, Sector 4, Chandigarh and the ﬁnancial instruments forming the Trust Fund, and in holding that the legal ownership vests in the trustees while the beneﬁcial interest stands conﬁned to the son and his descendants?

x Whether the exclusion of three daughters and their descendants from the beneﬁt and trusteeship of the trust, as expressly declared in the Will, cons4- tutes an unnatural or suspicious circumstance undermining its validity, or whether such exclusion represents a conscious and deliberate testamentary choice requiring eﬀect to be given thereto?

Page N: 21 of 50 Pages 21 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

x Whether suit was not maintainable in view of bar under Sec4on 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, in the absence of obtaining probate or leEer of administra4on?

x Whether the concurrent ﬁndings of the Courts below regarding allega4ons of misuse of trust funds and misappropria4on by the trustees were not es- tablished, suﬀer from perversity or misreading of evidence warran4ng inter- ference in second appeal?

x Whether the plea of "trust not acted upon", alleged non-opening of trust accounts, or alleged non-investment of Trust Fund in the manner contem- plated by the Will, cons4tute grounds to invalidate the trust scheme or to displace the trustees named by the testator, par4cularly in the absence of proof of misappropria4on or defalca4on of trust property?

x Whether, upon a correct construc4on of the Will, the beneﬁciary is en4tled to seek removal of the trustees named therein and claim rendi4on of ac- counts as of right, or whether the testamentary scheme indicates that trust- eeship was intended to remain with the two youngest daughters subject to administra4ve regula4on rather than replacement?

Court Analysis and Findings :

32. Scope of Interference : At the outset, it must be no4ced that all the present Regular Second Appeals arise out of concurrent ﬁndings of fact recorded by the Trial Courts and aﬃrmed by the First Appellate Courts. Interference under Sec4on 100 CPC is permissible only where perversity, misreading of evidence, or a substan4al ques4on of law is demonstrated. Bearing this limited jurisdic4on in mind, the issues arising for considera4on are examined hereinaLer.

33. Proof and Validity of the Will dated 01.08.1994: It is the conten4on of the appellants that it is mandatory to prove the lawful execu4on of the Will in accordance with Sec4on 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Sec4on 63 of the

Page N: 22 of 50 Pages 22 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

Indian Succession Act, 1925. To support this conten4on, learned counsel refers to "Dhaniram Vs. Shiv Singh", 2023 AIR (Supreme Court) 4787; "Meena Pradhan and others Vs. Kamla Pradhan and others" 2023 AIR (Supreme Court) 4680 and "Janki Narayan Bhoir Vs. Narayan Namdeo Kadam" 2003 AIR (Supreme Court)

761. It is urged by learned counsel that apart from the requirements of the above- said provisions of law, it is necessary to be proved that the testator signed the Will out of his own free will; that at the 4me of execu4on he had a sound state of mind; and that he was aware of the nature and eﬀect thereof; and that the Will was not executed under any suspicious circumstances. For the same reasoning re- liance is placed on "V Kalyanaswamy Vs. L Bakhtawar Ratlam" 2020 (3) Law Her- ald (SC) 1742; "Derek AC Lobo and others vs. Ulric MALabo (dead) through Lrs and others" (2) RCR (Civil) 873 (2024).

34. There can be no dispute to the above legal posi4on. However, in the present case, as far as the proof of execu4on of the Will dated 01.08.1994 is con- cerned, the Courts below, in the civil suit No.2718/1523 of 2013 & the consequent appeals, have concurrently held that the Will has been duly proved in accordance with law, on the basis of the statement of an aEes4ng witness, the admission of the children regarding the handwri4ng of the testator, and the produc4on of the original Will during evidence.

35. The appellants have not been able to point out any circumstance that casts doubt on the credibility of the aEes4ng witness namely Harpreet Kaur (PW2), or on the mental capacity of the testator. The Will to be in the Handwri4ng of the testator is established by the tes4mony of son DW2 Fateh Jang Singh Chahal. The Will is a detailed handwriEen document which sets out the facts, dis- tribu4ons and reasons in a clear and orderly manner, and shows that it was pre- pared consciously and with delibera4on.

Page N: 23 of 50 Pages 23 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

36. The alleged suspicious circumstances, though aErac4vely presented, do not withstand judicial scru4ny, when examined in the light of the evidence on record and the seEled principles governing proof of holographic Wills.

37. At the outset, the challenge based on non-compliance with Sec4on 63 of the Indian Succession Act read with Sec4on 68 of the India Evidence Act, 1872 is misconceived. The Will in ques4on is a holographic Will, admiEedly wriEen en- 4rely in the handwri4ng of the testator. As noted above, one of the aEes4ng wit- nesses was examined and supported the execu4on and aEesta4on of the Will. In addi4on thereto, the handwri4ng of the testator was expressly admiEed by the son. There is no cogent rebuEal to this evidence. It is well seEled that where a Will is wholly in the handwri4ng of the testator, the Court is en4tled to place greater reliance on internal consistency, admiEed handwri4ng, and surrounding circum- stances, and the eviden4ary burden regarding aEesta4on stands substan4ally lightened once an aEes4ng witness is examined and execu4on is proved.

38.1 The legal posi4on with regard to holographic Wills stands authoritat- ively seEled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Joyce Primrose Prestor (Nee Vas) v. Miss Vera Marie Vas and others, (1996) 9 SCC 324. In the said decision, while ul4mately upholding the rejec4on of the Will on facts, the Supreme Court lu- cidly expounded the governing principles applicable to holographic Wills. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a holographic Will, being wholly in the handwrit- ing of the testator, ordinarily carries a greater presump4on of genuineness, for the reason that the mental process of the testator is more clearly reﬂected in such a document than in a typed or scribed Will. The Court observed that the law at- taches such presump4on not mechanically, but because the act of personally wri4ng out the Will furnishes strong intrinsic evidence of conscious and deliberate testamentary intent.

38.2 Signiﬁcantly, the Supreme Court clariﬁed that suspicious circum- stances must be real, substan4al and founded on evidence, and not on conjec-

Page N: 24 of 50 Pages 24 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

tures such as age, illness, or the mere fact of unequal disposi4on. The Court de- precated an approach based on specula4ve reasoning, observing that suspicion cannot be subs4tuted for proof, and that a Will cannot be discarded merely be- cause a diﬀerent arrangement might appear more natural to others.

38.3 In support of this principle, Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the judgment of the CalcuEa High Court in Ajit Chandra Majumdar v. Akhil Chander Mojumder, AIR 1960 CalcuHa 551, wherein it was held that where a testator cop- ies out a draL Will in his own handwri4ng, such copying itself amounts to approval of the testamentary scheme. The Court reasoned that a person does not copy a draL merely as an exercise in handwri4ng; if the contents were not approved, the testator would either alter the draL or abandon it altogether. Thus, a holographic reproduc4on of a draL cons4tutes intrinsic proof of assent and inten4on.

38.4 Hon'ble Supreme Court further reaﬃrmed the principles laid down by the Cons4tu4on Bench in Shashi Kumar Banerjee and others v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee (deceased) thr LRs, AIR 1964 SC 529, wherein it was held that where a Will is holographic and the intrinsic recitals therein are consistent with surround- ing circumstances, the Court should aEach considerable weight to the document itself. The Cons4tu4on Bench cau4oned that in such cases, oral tes4mony of at- tes4ng witnesses ought not to be discarded lightly, par4cularly when there are no material suspicious circumstances and the Will bears internal coherence.

39. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, the approach adopted by the Courts below cannot be faulted. The Will dated 01.08.1994 is ad- miEedly a holographic Will, running into several pages, containing a detailed nar- ra4ve of the testator's property, family circumstances, mo4va4ons, and a carefully structured disposi4ve scheme. The handwri4ng of the testator has been admiEed by the son. One of the aEes4ng witnesses has been examined and has supported execu4on and aEesta4on. No sugges4on of interpola4on, fabrica4on or tampering was put to the witness. The mere fact that the aEes4ng witnesses were junior

Page N: 25 of 50 Pages 25 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

members of the Bar, or that every page does not bear a signature, does not cons4- tute a suspicious circumstance in law.

40. Equally, the unequal distribu4on or exclusion of some heirs, howso- ever harsh it may appear, cannot by itself render a holographic Will unnatural. As reiterated in Joyce Primrose Prestor (supra), testamentary freedom permits a testator to depart from equal distribu4on, and Courts are not to subs4tute their own no4ons of fairness for the clearly expressed inten4on of the testator.

41. Thus, the decision in Mrs. Joyce Primrose Prestor (Nee Vas) reinforces the principle that a holographic Will, once proved in accordance with law and found to be internally consistent and ra4onal, commands a strong presump4on of genuineness. In the absence of cogent and compelling suspicious circumstances, such a Will cannot be discarded on specula4ve or hyper-technical grounds.

42. The objec4on that the original Will, though produced during evid- ence, was not formally placed on the record, is equally devoid of substance. The evidence unmistakably shows that the original Will was produced before the Court, seen and compared during the tes4mony of witnesses, and its handwri4ng and execu4on were never disputed in cross-examina4on. Mere non-marking of the original as an exhibit, when its existence, produc4on and genuineness are oth- erwise proved, is at best a procedural irregularity and not a circumstance vi4a4ng proof of execu4on. The law does not elevate form over substance, par4cularly in testamentary maEers.

43. The conten4on that every page of the Will is not signed, also does not advance the appellants' case. There is no statutory requirement that each page of a Will must bear the signature of the testator or aEes4ng witnesses. What the law mandates is that the Will must be signed by the testator and aEested in the man- ner prescribed. In a holographic Will, con4nuity of handwri4ng, internal coher- ence, and absence of interpola4on are of far greater signiﬁcance than signatures

Page N: 26 of 50 Pages 26 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

on each page. No sugges4on of interpola4on, tampering or fabrica4on was put to any witness.

44. Equally unpersuasive is the argument that the aEes4ng witnesses were junior members of the Bar. The law does not recognise seniority, profes- sional status, or social standing of aEes4ng witnesses as a factor aﬀec4ng the validity of aEesta4on. Once aEesta4on in terms of Sec4on 63(c) is proved, the personal stature of the witnesses is wholly irrelevant. The submission borders on specula4on rather than legal inﬁrmity.

45. The plea that exclusion of three daughters renders the Will unnatural also cannot be accepted as a suspicious circumstance per se. A testator is legally en4tled to distribute his estate in a manner he considers appropriate. Unequal dis- tribu4on or exclusion of some heirs, when clearly expressed and consistently re- ﬂected in the Will, does not cons4tute a suspicious circumstance. In the present case, the Will is a long, reasoned document seOng out the testator's percep4on of family dynamics and his estate-planning objec4ves. The exclusion is not accidental or unexplained; rather, it is part of a conscious and structured scheme.

46. As regards the reliance placed on aﬃdavits Ex. D-4 and D-6 submiEed before the Estate Oﬃcer by Varinder Kaur Mann & Sonu Mann are concerned, the same do not create any ambiguity about the existence of mul4ple Wills. Those aﬃ- davits merely sought muta4on or administra4ve recogni4on of rights ﬂowing from the testamentary disposi4on. They do not prove the existence of another Will, nor was any such Will produced or proved by the appellants. A vague reference to a Will of the same date, without produc4on of any compe4ng testamentary instru- ment, cannot dislodge a duly proved Will. The burden to establish the existence of another Will lay squarely on the appellants, which they have failed to discharge.

47. The opening recital revoking prior Wills also does not create suspi- cion. On the contrary, such a clause is a standard testamentary precau4on, inten- ded to avoid future disputes. The law does not require the propounder to prove

Page N: 27 of 50 Pages 27 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

how many prior Wills existed or to produce revoked Wills. Once the last Will is proved, earlier Wills, if any, stand automa4cally superseded.

48. Estoppel, Approbate-Reprobate and Prior Pleadings : The conten4on that Varinder Kaur Mann is disen4tled to maintain the suit seeking validity of the Will on the ground that she had earlier challenged the Will in the Jagraon li4ga4on (Ex. D-9), and is therefore, barred by the principles of approbate and reprobate, estoppel or acquiescence, does not withstand legal scru4ny.

49. It is well seEled that the doctrine of approbate and reprobate applies only where a party consistently asserts mutually inconsistent posi4ons in respect of the same transac4on, the same subject-maEer, and against the same oppon- ent, so as to cause prejudice to the other side. A party cannot approbate and rep- robate, i.e., aﬃrm and deny the same posi4on in the same context, where such in- consistency would amount to an abuse of process or have prejudicial eﬀect. How- ever, the doctrine cannot be lightly invoked to ex post facto invalidate a substant- ive legal right, especially where the earlier plea was taken in a completely diﬀerent legal context and on diﬀerent facts.

50. In the instant case, the earlier challenge in the Jagraon suit pertained exclusively to the nature and devolu4on of the agricultural land in Tehsil Jagraon, and the plain4ﬀ's submission therein was directed only to the legal character of that property. That li4ga4on did not involve the testamentary trust rela4ng to House No. 41, Sector-4, Chandigarh, nor did it require determina4on of the valid- ity of the en4re Will as a coherent testamentary instrument opera4ve vis-à-vis all proper4es. A prior inconsistent stand in respect of one parcel of property, taken in a dis4nct cause of ac4on, cannot be elevated into a bar against asser4ng the cor- rect legal posi4on in another li4ga4on regarding a diﬀerent subject-maEer.

51. It is a seEled principle of law that the doctrine of estoppel cannot be invoked to override clear statutory provisions or to curtail the testamentary free- dom recognised by law. Estoppel has no applica4on where the issue involved in

Page N: 28 of 50 Pages 28 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

the subsequent proceedings was neither directly in ques4on nor required to be decided in the earlier li4ga4on. Further, the doctrine cannot be employed to de- feat a legal right conferred by statute or otherwise, par4cularly in maEers of inher- itance and succession, where the Court is required to determine substan4ve rights of heirs and beneﬁciaries on the basis of law and testamentary inten4on, and not on the basis of inconsistent or imperfect pleadings in earlier proceedings.

52. In the present case, even if it were assumed that the Varinder Kaur Mann or any other daughter of the testator once adopted an inconsistent posi4on in another li4ga4on, the same cannot estop them from asser4ng the validity of the Will in the present proceedings, where the issue is wholly diﬀerent and the legal founda4on is the testamentary inten4on of the deceased as evidenced in a duly proved holographic Will. The estate-planning arrangement made by the testator is not aﬀected by any earlier stand taken by a party, nor can a later challenge to a diﬀerent or inconsistent aspect of the property be allowed to defeat the Will as a whole.

53. Equally, the doctrine of acquiescence, which presupposes a party's si- lent acceptance of an event or posi4on over 4me , has no applica4on here. There is no evidence that the plain4ﬀ stood by while others acted to their detriment on the faith of her earlier pleadings. In the absence of such essen4al elements, acqui- escence cannot be invoked to defeat the testator's clear testamentary inten4on.

54. Therefore, the Court ﬁnds no merit in the conten4on that the Varinder Kaur Mann is barred by approbate and reprobate, estoppel or acquies- cence from maintaining the suit seeking validity of the Will.

55. Viewed cumula4vely, none of the circumstances relied upon by the appellants, whether individually or collec4vely, rise to the level of suspicious cir- cumstances so as to unseEle the concurrent ﬁndings of due execu4on. The Will bears the unmistakable imprint of deliberate authorship, ra4onal structuring, and conscious testamentary intent. The Courts below were, therefore, fully jus4ﬁed in

Page N: 29 of 50 Pages 29 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

holding that the holographic Will dated 01.08.1994 stands validly executed and proved in accordance with law. These ﬁndings are accordingly upheld.

56. Nature of agricultural land (RSA No.415 of 2025) : The nature of agri- cultural land situated in the two villages of Tehsil Jagraon, was the subject maEer of dispute in Civil Suit No. CS-21/2008 [later re-numbered as CS-1475 of 2013], in- s4tuted before the Jagraon Court. Two of the daughters of Shri Daljeet Singh Chahal, namely, Varinder Kaur and Sonu Mann claimed this property to be ances- tral coparcenary property, having devolved upon of Shri Daljeet Singh Chahal from his father, Shri Jhanda Singh Chahal. They claimed birth-right in this property and asserted equal coparcenary shares therein and that the par4es cons4tuted a joint Hindu family with late Sardar Daljeet Singh Chahal as its Karta. Later during the proceedings, Varinder Kaur Mann changed her stand and aLer being transposed as one of the defendants, she made somersault and asserted the suit property to be exclusively owned by Shri Daljeet Singh Chahal, thus, suppor4ng the stand of her brother Fateh Jang Singh Chahal and three other sisters, namely, Naresh Sandhu, Davinder Kaur Boparai & Indira Gill, in this regard.

57. On appraisal of the documentary and oral evidence, suit property of Tehsil Jagraon has been held by the Courts below to be the exclusive and self-ac- quired property of the testator. Having ﬁled second appeal [RSA 415-2025], against concurrent ﬁndings of courts below, only Sonu Mann is s4ll asser4ng the said land of the two villages of Tehsil Jagraon to be ancestral coparcenary prop- erty.

58. The legal posi4on with regard to ancestral property is no longer res integra. Property acquires the character of ancestral property only if it devolves by inheritance through three successive genera4ons, namely from father to son, from grandfather to father, and from great-grandfather to grandfather. As no4ced in paragraph 223 of Mulla's Principles of Hindu Law, in order to establish the ances- tral nature of a property, it must be shown that the property descended through

Page N: 30 of 50 Pages 30 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

this uninterrupted male lineage. Any devia4on or break in this chain of devolu4on destroys the coparcenary character, rendering the property the self-acquired property of the last holder.

59. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CWT, Kanpur and others v. Chander Sen and others, (1986) 3 SCC 567, authorita4vely held that property inherited by a son from his father does not automa4cally become ancestral or coparcenary prop- erty; rather, it becomes the individual property of the heir, unless it can be shown to have descended through three genera4ons. This principle was reiterated in Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204, wherein the Supreme Court clari- ﬁed that inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confers absolute own- ership on the heir and does not revive the concept of coparcenary property under the old Hindu law.

60. In the present case, even as per the pleadings and the tes4mony of the plain4ﬀ Sonu Mann (PW-2), it stands admiEed that her father, late Sardar Daljit Singh Chahal, had acquired the suit land from his father, Sardar Jhanda Singh. There is, however, no documentary or oral evidence to establish as to from whom or in what manner Sardar Jhanda Singh himself had acquired the said prop- erty. The revenue records, including the village excerpts relied upon by the plain4ﬀ, are silent on this aspect and do not establish descent through three gen- era4ons. In the absence of such proof, the basic requirement for trea4ng the property as ancestral or coparcenary remains unfulﬁlled.

61. More importantly, it is an admiEed posi4on that Sardar Daljit Singh Chahal was embroiled in li4ga4on with his siblings in respect of the land situated in the two villages. The said li4ga4on culminated in judgment dated 24.09.1997 (Ex. D-1) passed by this Court, whereby a par44on was eﬀected and speciﬁc khasra numbers were alloEed to Sardar Daljit Singh Chahal. This fact has been fur- ther admiEed by Sonu Mann in her cross-examina4on, wherein she acknowledged that muta4on had already been sanc4oned on the basis of the said judgment.

Page N: 31 of 50 Pages 31 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

62. Once a par44on by metes and bounds takes place and speciﬁc por- 4ons are alloEed to a coparcener, the property loses its character as joint family or coparcenary property and becomes the separate and exclusive property of the alloEee. This posi4on has been conclusively aﬃrmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UHam v. Saubhag Singh and others, (2016) 4 SCC 68, wherein it was held that upon par44on, the joint status of the family comes to an end and the share alloEed becomes the absolute property of the alloEee, incapable of being treated as coparcenary thereaLer.

63. In this backdrop, the Courts below have rightly referred to the Explan- a4on to Sec4on 6, as also Sec4on 6-A of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended in 2005, which categorically provide that where a par44on has been ef- fected prior to 20.12.2004, the property ceases to retain its coparcenary charac- ter.

64. Since the par44on in the present case stood concluded in the year 1997, much prior to the cut-oﬀ date, the suit property cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be treated as coparcenary property in the hands of late Sardar Daljit Singh Chahal.

65. Eﬀect of Erroneous Recital in the Will : The recital in the Will describ- ing the agricultural land of the two villages as Joint Hindu Family (coparcenary) property and referring to the bequest of the "half share" of the testator in favour of his son does not, in law, undermine the eﬃcacy of the testamentary disposi4on. The construc4on of a Will is governed by Sec4ons 82 to 85 of the Indian Succes- sion Act, 1925, which mandate that the inten4on of the testator is to be gathered from the Will as a whole and that eﬀect must be given to such inten4on, as far as possible, consistently with law.

66. Sec4on 82 of the Act lays down that the meaning of any clause of a Will is to be collected from the en4re instrument, and not from isolated expres- sions. Sec4on 83 further clariﬁes that where the words of a Will are capable of two

Page N: 32 of 50 Pages 32 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

construc4ons, that construc4on is to be preferred which gives eﬀect to the dispos- i4on, rather than one which renders it inopera4ve. Sec4on 84 provides that where property is described inaccurately, but the inten4on to bequeath is otherwise clear, the bequest does not fail merely by reason of such inaccurate descrip4on. Sec4on 85 similarly recognises that a bequest is not void for uncertainty if the in- ten4on of the testator can be ascertained with reasonable certainty from the Will read as a whole.

67. The Will in the present case was executed on 01.08.1994, at a 4me when li4ga4on between the testator and his siblings regarding the agricultural land situated in Village Agwan Gujjran and Village Galib Kalan was pending. The testator's descrip4on of the land as coparcenary property and his reference to a "half share" must, therefore, be understood in the context of his then-perceived legal posi4on. Subsequently, by judgment dated 24.09.1997 (Ex.D1), this Court conclusively determined that upon par44on the said land fell to the exclusive share of the testator. The later judicial determina4on of 4tle merely clariﬁed the extent of the testator's ownership and does not render the earlier testamentary disposi4on uncertain or ineﬀec4ve.

68. Even though the testator was a Senior Advocate, he appears to have proceeded on an assump4on regarding the juris4c character of the property, which was ul4mately found to be incorrect. Such a mistaken descrip4on of 4tle does not defeat the bequest. Sec4ons 82 and 84 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 make it clear that the Court must give eﬀect to the substance of the testa- mentary inten4on, rather than allow the disposi4on to fail on account of an erro- neous recital, par4cularly where the testator had an alienable interest, which sub- sequently stood enlarged or clariﬁed by opera4on of law.

69. It may be urged, though not speciﬁcally pleaded, that since the test- ator referred to the property as coparcenary and purported to bequeath only his perceived half share, the remaining share ought to devolve by natural succession.

Page N: 33 of 50 Pages 33 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

This conten4on overlooks the seEled principle that an admission or recital con- trary to law is not binding, and that the extent of a bequest is not to be restricted by a mistaken understanding of 4tle when the inten4on of the testator is other- wise manifest. A reading of the Will as a whole, as required by Sec4on 82, leaves no ambiguity that the testator intended his son to succeed to the agricultural land exclusively.

70. Once the par44on proceedings culminated in 1997 and the testator's exclusive ownership stood judicially aﬃrmed, the bequest necessarily operated upon the en4rety of the property falling to his share. Construing the Will in ac- cordance with Sec4ons 82 to 85 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the testament- ary disposi4on in favour of the son cannot be truncated or rendered par4ally inop- era4ve merely because the testator, at the 4me of execu4on, underes4mated the extent of his 4tle.

71. The concurrent ﬁnding of the Courts below that the property was the exclusive and absolute property of the testator, and therefore fully capable of be- ing disposed of by him through a Will, thus rests on sound legal principles and binding precedent, and calls for no interference. Accordingly, the bequest of the agricultural land in favour of the son stands as a valid and eﬀec4ve disposi4ve clause, and no ground is made out to interfere with the concurrent ﬁndings of the Courts below on this aspect. As such, RSA No. 415 of 2025, therefore, is devoid of any merits.

72. Validity and Construc on of the Trust: The principal dispute relates to House No. 41, Sector 4, Chandigarh and the associated ﬁnancial instruments, which the testator has expressly treated as forming the corpus of a private testa- mentary trust, to be known as the "Daljit Singh Chahal Advocate Private Trust, Chandigarh".

73. The language of the Will clearly indicates that the testator intended that all beneﬁts arising out of House No. 41, Sector-4, Chandigarh, together with

Page N: 34 of 50 Pages 34 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

the ﬁnancial instruments forming part of the Trust Fund, should enure exclusively to his son, Fateh Jang Singh Chahal, and his descendants. This inten4on emerges from the following features:

a. The object of crea4ng the trust in respect of House No. 41, Sector-4, Chand- igarh was to ensure that the son and his descendants receive support for their educa4on, marriages and maintenance, and to supplement their in- come so as to preserve their economic and social standing. Accordingly, all ﬁnancial instruments were directed to be converted into a consolidated Trust Fund.

b. The Will makes it explicit that the beneﬁciaries of the trust are only the son and his descendants, save for minor amounts earmarked towards trustee- ship expenses and maintenance of the house.

74. At the same 4me, the testator appears to have been conscious of the risk of dissipa4on or aliena4on of the house and ﬁnancial corpus. To safeguard the estate while ensuring that only the son and his descendants beneﬁt from it, he cons4tuted a trust and appointed his two younger daughters -- Varinder Kaur Mann and Sonu Mann -- as trustees, conferring upon them limited managerial and supervisory func4ons. This is reinforced by the following clauses in the Will:

i. the Trust Fund is to be u4lised only for the beneﬁt of the beneﬁciaries, save for speciﬁed excep4ons;

ii. detailed direc4ons are issued regarding investment of the Trust Fund in iden4ﬁed ﬁnancial instruments such as PPF, UTI and NSS etc;

iii. a ﬁxed monthly amount is to be paid to the beneﬁciary;

iv. a speciﬁed annual sum is earmarked for repair and maintenance of the house;

Page N: 35 of 50 Pages

35 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

v. the trustees are to bear liability for payment of income tax, house tax and other statutory dues;

vi. the trustees are expressly prohibited from crea4ng any encumbrance on the trust property;

vii. they are further restrained from aliena4ng the trust property in any manner whatsoever; and

viii. the Trust Fund is to be applied towards the upbringing, educa4on and mar-

riage of the beneﬁciaries, and in the event of disagreement between the two trustees on such u4lisa4on, the decision of Varinder Kaur Mann is to prevail.

75. It is also evident from the Will that no proprietary rights have been conferred upon the daughter-in-law of the testator, who has only been granted a right of residence. Likewise, no rights have been given to the three elder daugh- ters, namely, Naresh Sandhu, Daljinder Kaur Boparai and Indira Gill. The trustees themselves have merely been granted a right of residence, in their capacity as trustees, in the por4ons speciﬁcally earmarked for them in the site plan appended to the Will, along with their respec4ve sons.

76. It is thus clear that the Will sets out, with remarkable precision, the ambit of the trust property, the cons4tu4on of the Trust Fund, the manner of in- vestment of its income, the purposes for which the funds may be u4lised, and the restric4ons placed upon aliena4on of the Trust Property. Equally explicit is the iden4ﬁca4on of the two youngest daughters, namely, Mrs. Virinder Kaur Mann and Mrs. Sonu Mann as trustees, and the declara4on that the son and his des- cendants shall be the beneﬁciaries of the trust.

77. Reading the Will as a whole, and applying the seEled principle that a testamentary instrument must be construed so as to give eﬀect to the dominant inten4on of the testator gathered from the en4re document rather than isolated

Page N: 36 of 50 Pages 36 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

clauses, the testamentary scheme reveals a clear separa4on of legal and beneﬁcial ownership. The repeated prohibi4ons against mortgage, sale, lease, encumbrance or crea4on of any charge over the house; the detailed direc4ons for investment and accumula4on of interest; the s4pula4on of a nominal monthly allowance to the son; and the speciﬁca4on of educa4onal, marital and welfare needs of his des- cendants as the legi4mate heads of expenditure, together indicate that the test- ator did not intend the Trust Property to pass to the son as his absolute estate. In- stead, he conceived a protec4ve and enduring family trust, intended to preserve the house and ﬁnancial corpus as a capital asset under controlled management, while enabling carefully regulated enjoyment of the income by the line of the son.

78. The appellants have urged that the exclusion of the three elder daughters and their descendants from trusteeship as well as from the beneﬁt of the trust cons4tutes an inherently suspicious feature which renders the Will un- natural. This Court is unable to accept that submission. The exclusion is expressly ar4culated in unambiguous language. It is not abrupt or incidental and rather, it is embedded in a larger scheme by which trusteeship was consciously vested in the two youngest daughters and the beneﬁcial enjoyment was restricted to the son and his progeny. Where the Will is holographic, reasoned and internally coherent, such diﬀeren4al treatment among heirs, even if severe or inequitable, cannot by itself amount to a suspicious circumstance so as to undermine its validity. A test- ator is en4tled to exercise preferences and dis4nc4ons based on his personal per- cep4ons and family dynamics, and the Court is not to subs4tute its own no4ons of fairness for the inten4on of the author of the Will.

79. The appellants have further relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Mahadeo Ramchandra v. Damodar Vishwanath and another, AIR 1957 Bom 218, to contend that the testamentary disposi4on made by late Sardar Daljit Singh Chahal in respect of House No. 41, Sector-4, Chandigarh and the ﬁnan- cial instruments is vague, indeﬁnite and uncertain, and therefore void. The reli- ance is misplaced, both on facts and in law.

Page N: 37 of 50 Pages 37 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

80. As no4ced earlier, the construc4on of a Will is governed by Sec4ons 82 to 85 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which embody the fundamental rule that the inten4on of the testator must be gathered from the Will as a whole and given eﬀect to as far as possible. Sec4on 82 mandates a holis4c reading of the in- strument; Sec4on 83 prefers a construc4on that sustains the bequest rather than defeats it; Sec4on 84 clariﬁes that inaccurate or imperfect descrip4on of property does not vi4ate a bequest, if the inten4on is otherwise clear; and Sec4on 85 provides that a disposi4on does not fail for uncertainty if the testator's inten4on can be reasonably ascertained.

81. Applying these principles, a Will cannot be struck down merely be- cause it confers discre4on on trustees, unless such discre4on is unguided, arbit- rary, or divorced from any ascertainable object. The test is not whether discre4on exists, but whether the testator has laid down a deﬁnite testamentary scheme capable of being administered.

82. The Bombay High Court in Mahadeo Ramchandra (supra) itself drew a clear doctrinal dis4nc4on between a 'trust' and a 'power', emphasising that un- certainty is fatal only where a trust obliga4on is imposed without iden4ﬁable ob- jects, whereas a general power of appointment, even if wide, does not fail for vagueness. The Court ul4mately upheld the disposi4on in that case by holding that the testator had conferred a valid power, relying on Privy Council decisions such as Shirnibai v. Ratanbai, AIR 1921 PC 47, and AHorney-General of New Zealand v. New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1937 PC 8.

83. When the principles laid down in Mahadeo Ramchandra (supra) are read in conjunc4on with Sec4ons 6, 11, 23 and 31 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, it becomes evident that the Will in the present case does not suﬀer from the inﬁrm- ity of uncertainty as is alleged by the appellants.

84. Sec4on 6 of the Trusts Act requires certainty as to (i) inten4on, (ii) purpose, (iii) beneﬁciary, and (iv) trust property, when a trust is created. All these

Page N: 38 of 50 Pages 38 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

elements are clearly present in the Will of late Sardar Daljit Singh Chahal. The in- ten4on to create a trust is unequivocal. The trust property is speciﬁcally iden4ﬁed. The beneﬁciary, namely the son Fateh Jung Singh Chahal and his descendants, is clearly deﬁned. And the purpose of the trust, namely to secure educa4on, up- bringing, marriages and maintenance of the beneﬁciary while preserving the cor- pus, is expressly stated.

85. Sec4on 11 obliges trustees to fulﬁl the purpose of the trust and to obey the direc4ons of the author of the trust. Far from leaving the trustees with unregulated discre4on, the Will, in the present case, imposes detailed and binding direc4ons regarding investment of funds, monthly payments to the beneﬁciary, annual expenditure on repairs, payment of taxes, and an absolute prohibi4on on aliena4on or encumbrance of the trust property.

86. Sec4on 23 makes trustees liable for breach of trust, thereby providing a statutory safeguard against misuse or devia4on from the trust purpose. Further, the Act permits trustees to apply trust property only in accordance with the trust direc4ons, reinforcing that discre4on, where conferred, must operate within the four corners of the testamentary scheme.

87. Unlike the testamentary language considered in Mahadeo Ramchandra (supra), where the executor was leL free to distribute the estate to any ins4tu4on or object "as he may deem ﬁt", the present Will contains a 4ghtly structured trust framework. The trustees are not authorised to choose beneﬁciar- ies at will, nor to divert the property for unspeciﬁed purposes. Their discre4on is limited, supervised, and purpose-oriented, and is exercisable only for the beneﬁt of clearly iden4ﬁed beneﬁciaries.

88. Construed in accordance with Sec4ons 82-85 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and tested against the statutory requirements of a valid trust under Sec- 4ons 6, 11, 23 and 31 of the Trusts Act, the Will cannot be characterised as vague or uncertain. On the contrary, it reﬂects a deliberate estate-planning exercise

Page N: 39 of 50 Pages 39 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

aimed at preserving the property while ensuring controlled enjoyment by the be- neﬁciary.

89. Accordingly, the principles laid down in Mahadeo Ramchandra v. Damodar Vishwanath (supra) do not advance the appellants' case. The testa- mentary trust created by late Sardar Daljit Singh Chahal is legally sound, certain in its objects and beneﬁciaries, and fully capable of administra4on. No ground is made out to declare the disposi4on void on the ground of vagueness or indeﬁnite- ness.

90. The principles governing construc4on of a Will are well seEled. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Bajrang Bahadur Singh v. Thakurain Bakhtraj Kuer, 1953 SCR 232, the true inten4on of the testator must be gathered not by isola4ng par4cular expressions, but by reading the Will as a whole and giv- ing due eﬀect to all its provisions, without ignoring any part thereof.

91. Similarly, in Bajrang Factory Ltd. and others v. University of CalcuHa and Others, (2007) 7 SCC 183, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that while construing a Will for determining its validity, the Court must place itself in the pos- i4on of the testator and consider the surrounding circumstances as they existed at the 4me of execu4on, and not in the light of subsequent events. It was further held that:

(i) the inten4on of the testator is to be ascertained not only from the lan-

guage employed in the Will, but also from the aEendant circumstances;

(ii) the Will must be read and construed as an integrated whole, and not by focusing on isolated clauses;

(iii) where a reasonable construc4on is possible which gives eﬀect to the Will, the Court should lean in favour of sustaining, rather than invalida4ng, the testamentary disposi4on; and

Page N: 40 of 50 Pages 40 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

(iv) even if a par4cular clause is found to be invalid or inopera4ve, the re- maining disposi4ons need not fail, provided the invalid por4on is severable and the overall testamentary scheme remains intact.

92. Applying these principles to the present case, the Will dated 01.08.1994, when read in its en4rety and in the context of the circumstances pre- vailing at the 4me of its execu4on, manifests a coherent and consistent testa- mentary plan. The Court is, therefore, duty-bound to adopt an interpreta4on that preserves and eﬀectuates the dominant inten4on of the testator, rather than one which defeats the Will by isola4ng or overstressing individual clauses.

93. Learned counsel for the appellants has further contended that the Will dated 01.08.1994 could not have been acted upon in the absence of probate or leEers of administra4on. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Philip Raymond and another v. Ku- mara Pillai Demadaran Nair and another, AIR 1982 Ker 136, wherein it was held that where assets are bequeathed to a trust under a Will and a decree is sought to be executed on the strength of such Will, the managing trustee cannot be permit- ted to execute the decree without ﬁrst obtaining probate. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Mrs. Hem Nolini Judah (since deceased) v. Mrs. Isolyne Saroj Bashini Bose, AIR 1962 SC 1471, wherein it was held that Sec4on 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 creates a bar to the establishment of any right under a Will by an executor or legatee unless probate or leEers of administra4on have been obtained. Learned counsel has further re- lied upon Binapani Kar Chowdhury v. Satyabrata Basu and another, AIR 2006 SC 226, reitera4ng the same principle.

94. However, none of the aforesaid authori4es advance the appellants' case, as they are clearly dis4nguishable on both statutory and territorial grounds. Sec4on 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, by its express terms, applies only to Wills falling within the ambit of Sec4on 57(a) and (b) of the Act, namely Wills

Page N: 41 of 50 Pages 41 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

made by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs or Jains within the local limits of the former Presidency towns of CalcuEa, Madras and Bombay, or rela4ng to immovable prop- erty situated within those territories. The judgments relied upon by learned coun- sel pertain to proper4es situated in Kerala, UEar Pradesh and West Bengal, where the statutory requirement of probate might be aEracted.

95. In contradis4nc4on, it is well-seEled that probate or leEers of admin- istra4on are not mandatory in respect of Wills concerning property situated in the States of Punjab and Haryana or the Union Territory of Chandigarh. This legal posi- 4on has been consistently reiterated by this Court from 4me to 4me, holding that Sec4on 213 of the Act does not operate as a bar to the enforcement of rights un- der a Will in these territories. Reference may be made to Ram Chand vs. Sardara Singh and another AIR 1962 P&H 382; and Behari Lal Ram Charan vs. Karam Chand Sahni and others, AIR 1968 (Punjab) 108, which have been approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanta Yadav vs Om Prakash Yadav (supra).

96. Consequently, the absence of probate or leEers of administra4on does not render the Will dated 01.08.1994 inopera4ve, nor does it disen4tle the trustees or beneﬁciaries from asser4ng rights ﬂowing therefrom. The reliance placed on the decisions cited by learned counsel for the appellants is, therefore, wholly misconceived and does not warrant interference with the concurrent ﬁnd- ings of the Courts below.

97. Removal of Trustees and Alleged Misuse (RSA 3416 of 2023): The grievance of the beneﬁciary Fateh Jang Singh Chahal in the third suit was that the trustees Varinder Kaur Mann & Sonu Mann, failed to open separate trust ac- counts, did not pay him the monthly amount of ₹1,000/-, and did not invest the trust funds in the manner contemplated by the Will. The Courts below have con- currently held that misappropria4on or usurpa4on of trust funds was not proved and that there was no evidence of wrongful personal enrichment. The Will itself does not provide for automa4c removal of trustees on the allega4on of adminis-

Page N: 42 of 50 Pages 42 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

tra4ve lapse, nor does it confer supervisory authority on the beneﬁciary to control the trustees.

98. On the contrary, the conferment of a cas4ng vote upon one of the trustees and the express direc4on that the Trust Property shall not be alienated or encumbered under any circumstances indicate that trusteeship was itself an es- sen4al and integral component of the estate structure devised by the testator.

99. The evidence led by the par4es (in the third suit), par4cularly the ad- missions made by the plain4ﬀ-beneﬁciary Fateh Jang Singh Chahal (PW-1), as- sumes decisive signiﬁcance while considering the prayer for removal of trustees and rendi4on of accounts. The plain4ﬀ categorically admiEed in his cross-examin- a4on that defendant No.2 (Sonu Mann) never came into possession of any trust funds; that no rendi4on of accounts was sought from her; and that she neither misu4lised nor misappropriated any trust property. He further conceded that no prior no4ce was issued to the trustees alleging viola4on of the testamentary direc- 4ons, nor could he specify any date or instance when such compliance was de- manded.

100. As regards defendant No.1 (Varinder Kaur Mann), the only alleged in- stance of misuse pertains to withdrawal from the PPF account standing in the name of the testator aLer his demise. Even on this aspect, the plain4ﬀ failed to es- tablish, by cogent evidence, that such withdrawal cons4tuted diversion of trust funds for personal gain, or that it was destruc4ve of the trust purpose. On the con- trary, the trustee Varinder Kaur Mann in her tes4mony as DW1 admiEed with- drawal and asserted that the amount was u4lised for renova4on and maintenance of the trust property itself. The Will does not prescribe forfeiture or removal of trusteeship for such conduct, nor does it mandate automa4c disqualiﬁca4on upon alleged devia4on.

Page N: 43 of 50 Pages 43 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

101. Sec4ons 47 to 51 of the Indian Trusts Act embody the core ﬁduciary principles governing the conduct of trustees and the administra4on of trust prop- erty.

Sec4on 47 lays down that a trustee cannot delegate his oﬃce or es- sen4al du4es, whether to a co-trustee or to a third person, unless such delega4on is expressly authorised by the trust instrument, arises in the regular course of busi- ness, is necessary, or is consented to by a competent beneﬁciary. However, the sec4on clariﬁes that delega4on of merely ministerial acts involving no independ- ent discre4on, such as collec4on of rents or eﬀec4ng a sale through an agent, does not amount to impermissible delega4on.

Sec4on 48 mandates that where there are more trustees than one, they must act jointly in the execu4on of the trust, unless the trust instrument provides otherwise. Unilateral exercise of trust powers by a single trustee is, therefore, ordinarily impermissible.

Sec4on 49 empowers the Court to control the exercise of discre4onary powers conferred upon trustees where such discre4on is not exercised reason- ably, honestly, or in good faith. The provision ensures judicial supervision over ab- use or misuse of discre4onary authority.

Sec4on 50 declares that a trustee is not en4tled to remunera4on for services rendered in administering the trust unless such remunera4on is expressly authorised by the trust instrument, by contract with the beneﬁciary, or by order of the Court. Trusteeship is, by default, a gratuitous ﬁduciary oﬃce.

Sec4on 51 prohibits a trustee from using or dealing with trust prop- erty for personal proﬁt or for any purpose unconnected with the trust. Any per- sonal beneﬁt derived from trust property, except as expressly authorised, cons4- tutes a breach of trust.

102. Sec4on 23 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 provides for liability of trustee for breach of trust. It makes a trustee liable for loss to the trust property, only where such loss is caused by breach of trust. Mere delay, imperfect compli-

Page N: 44 of 50 Pages 44 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

ance, or administra4ve lapse, in the absent proof of dishonest inten4on, fraud, or wilful misapplica4on, does not ipso facto jus4fy removal of a trustee.

103. When the evidence in the present case is examined in the light of these statutory provisions, it becomes evident that while the trustees may not have opera4onalised the trust with procedural exac4tude, such as by formally se- grega4ng accounts or maintaining structured records, no material breach of trust within the meaning of Sec4on 23 read with Sec4ons 47 to 51 has been estab- lished. There is no proof of dishonest inten4on, wilful diversion of trust property, or conduct fundamentally destruc4ve of the trust purpose.

104. At the same 4me, the statutory scheme of the Trusts Act does not contemplate passive trusteeship. Trustees are under a con4nuing obliga4on to ac4vely implement the trust, preserve the trust estate, maintain accounts, and ap- ply the trust property strictly in accordance with the direc4ons of the testator. Where such du4es have not been fully discharged, the Court is empowered to is- sue correc4ve and supervisory direc4ons to secure compliance, without resor4ng to the extreme step of removal of trustees, par4cularly when the testator con- sciously vested wide administra4ve discre4on in the trustees, subject to ﬁduciary obliga4ons, and did not provide for their displacement except through natural va- cancy. Courts cannot rewrite the testamentary scheme under the guise of equit- able interven4on.

105. Thus, harmonising Sec4ons 47 to 51 of the Trusts Act with the testa- mentary intent and the concurrent ﬁndings of fact, the appropriate course is not to unseEle the trusteeship, but to compel structured, transparent, and faithful ad- ministra4on of the trust going forward.

106. In the absence of any proof of misappropria4on or conduct that de- feats the purpose of the trust, the trustees cannot be removed merely because some administra4ve steps were not carried out in strict accordance with the Will. In such a situa4on, the proper course is to ensure due compliance with the trust

Page N: 45 of 50 Pages 45 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

scheme by issuing direc4ons for maintenance of accounts, proper handling of funds, and adherence to the testamentary direc4ons, rather than removing the trustees chosen by the testator himself. Interference with the concurrent ﬁndings of the Courts below, on the issue of alleged misuse of trust funds, is not jus4ﬁed unless perversity or a clear misreading of evidence is established. No such defect has been shown in the present case.

107. On a holis4c reading of the Will and the evidence, this Court is of the view that the Courts below rightly construed the testamentary instrument as cre- a4ng a valid trust in respect of House No. 41, Sector 4, Chandigarh and the ﬁnan- cial corpus, with trusteeship vested in the two youngest daughters Varinder Kaur Mann & sonu Mann and beneﬁcial enjoyment conﬁned to the son and his des- cendants. The pleas of perversity and non-implementa4on are insuﬃcient to un- seEle the concurrent ﬁndings. The trust scheme may undoubtedly require regulat- ory direc4ons to ensure faithful adherence to the investment and accoun4ng s4p- ula4ons contained in the Will, but such direc4ons would operate within the frame- work of the testamentary trust, and not in deroga4on of it.

108. That said, the material on record does reveal that the trust has not been opera4onalised with the degree of formality and transparency envisaged by the testator, par4cularly with respect to segrega4on of trust funds, maintenance of accounts, and structured implementa4on of the trust scheme. The beneﬁciary cannot be leL remediless, nor can the trust be permiEed to remain in a state of in- formal administra4on indeﬁnitely.

109. Accordingly, while the prayer for removal of trustees stands rightly re- jected, the ends of jus4ce require regulatory and correc4ve direc4ons, consistent with provisions of the Trusts Act, to ensure faithful execu4on of the Will.

110. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court ﬁnds no ground to in- terfere with the concurrent ﬁndings of the Courts below with respect to the due execu4on and validity of the holographic Will dated 01.08.1994 and the testa-

Page N: 46 of 50 Pages 46 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

mentary scheme embodied therein. The Will clearly create a private trust in re- spect of House No. 41, Sector-4, Chandigarh and the ﬁnancial corpus cons4tu4ng the Trust Fund, vests trusteeship in Mrs. Virinder Kaur Mann and Mrs. Sonu Mann, and restricts the beneﬁcial enjoyment to the son and his descendants. The ﬁndings returned by the Courts below, rejec4ng the allega4ons of misappropria4on and misuse of Trust Fund and holding that the trust clauses operate in accordance with the inten4on of the testator, are borne out from the record and do not suﬀer from perversity so as to warrant interference in second appeal.

111. At the same 4me, having regard to the nature of the estate structure devised by the testator and in order to ensure faithful implementa4on of the testa- mentary direc4ons and transparent administra4on of the trust estate, this Court is of the view that certain regulatory measures are necessary to secure accountabil- ity without disturbing the essen4al framework of the trust.

112. However, in view of the eviden4ary posi4on emerging on record, namely, that except for the PPF account, all other ﬁnancial instruments (bank ac- counts, FDRs, cer4ﬁcates, etc.) are admiEedly in the possession and enjoyment of the beneﬁciary Fateh Jang Singh Chahal, the direc4on regarding opening and oper- a4on of the trust account requires careful calibra4on, so as to remain faithful to the Will, realis4c in execu4on, and legally sustainable.

113. The Will contemplates that all ﬁnancial instruments standing in the name of the testator shall cons4tute the "Trust Fund" and be deposited in the name of the Trust. However, testamentary direc4ons must be enforced in the con- text of exis4ng facts, and not in abstrac4on. The evidence led by the par4es estab- lishes that, save and except the PPF account, the other movable ﬁnancial assets stood transferred or came into the possession of the beneﬁciary son aLer the de- mise of the testator and have since been enjoyed by him. These assets are no longer traceable as a corpus capable of being consolidated by the trustees.

Page N: 47 of 50 Pages 47 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

114. In such circumstances, the Court cannot direct a no4onal or retro- spec4ve reconstruc4on of a trust fund that is no longer available or iden4ﬁable. Any such direc4on would amount to reopening seEled possession without plead- ings or proof of misappropria4on, which is impermissible in second appellate juris- dic4on.

115. At the same 4me, the Court cannot ignore the express testamentary intent that whatever trust funds are available or come into existence must be dealt with strictly in accordance with the trust scheme. Therefore, the direc4on to open a trust account must be prospec4ve, limited, and asset-speciﬁc, rather than omnibus.

Conclusion & DirecCons:

116. Accordingly, the ﬁndings recorded by the Courts below are aﬃrmed. All the four Regular Appeals are hereby dismissed. However, with a view to ensure the eﬀec4ve implementa4on of the Will dated 01.08.1994 and the proper, transparent and lawful administra4on of "Daljit Singh Chahal, Advocate Private Trust, Chandigarh", this Court, while declining interference on merits, deems it appropriate to issue the following supervisory direc4ons, in exercise of jurisdic4on under Sec4on 49 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882:

(i) The prayer seeking removal of Mrs. Varinder Kaur Mann and Mrs. Sonu Mann as trustees is hereby declined. They shall con4nue to func4on as trustees of 'Daljit Singh Chahal, Advocate Private Trust, Chandigarh'.

(ii) The trust structure, the disposi4ve scheme, and the restric4ons on aliena4on as expressly contained in the Will dated 01.08.1994 shall remain fully opera4ve and shall be adhered to strictly in leEer and spirit.

(iii) In order to ensure faithful administra4on of the trust, the following direc4ons are issued to the trustees:

(a) The trustees, namely Mrs. Varinder Kaur Mann and Mrs. Sonu Mann, shall act jointly in all maEers concerning the administra4on of the trust,

Page N: 48 of 50 Pages 48 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

strictly in accordance with the terms of the Will and the mandate of Sec4on 48 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882.

(b) Within a period of three months from today, the trustees shall open a bank account in the name of "Daljit Singh Chahal, Advocate Private Trust, Chandigarh", to be operated jointly, for rou4ng and managing such trust-related funds as are presently iden4ﬁable or may lawfully accrue hereaLer.

(c) In view of the evidence on record demonstra4ng that all ﬁnancial instruments, except the PPF account, are already in the possession and enjoyment of the beneﬁciary, the said trust account shall operate prospec4vely and shall receive only such funds as are legally transferable to, or accrue for, the Trust, without disturbing assets already enjoyed by the beneﬁciary.

(d) The trustees shall maintain proper annual accounts, strictly conﬁned to trust funds actually handled or managed by them through the aforesaid account. Such accounts shall be open to inspec4on by the beneﬁciary upon reasonable no4ce.

(e) Any future exercise of discre4onary power by the trustees, if shown to be unreasonable, lacking in good faith, or contrary to the object and purpose of the trust, shall remain amenable to correc4on by the competent Civil Court in accordance with Sec4on 49 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882.

(f) For the avoidance of any doubt, it is clariﬁed that these direc4ons are prospec4ve and supervisory in nature and shall not be construed as authorising:

• reopening of past transac4ons,

• retrospec4ve reconstruc4on of the trust corpus, or

• recovery of assets already in seEled possession,

Page N: 49 of 50 Pages 49 of 50

RSA No.2351-2019 (O&M)

in the absence of a speciﬁc and proven ﬁnding of breach of trust.

117. It is further clariﬁed that compliance with the aforesaid direc4ons shall not confer any proprietary or beneﬁcial interest upon the trustees in the trust property or funds beyond what is expressly provided in the Will; and their role remaining purely ﬁduciary, as contemplated under Sec4ons 48 and 51 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882.

118. Further, nothing contained herein shall be construed as direc4ng or manda4ng any muta4on or transfer of 4tle by any statutory authority, such maEers being governed independently in accordance with law.

119. Save to the limited extent indicated above, nothing in this order shall be construed as altering, modifying or dilu4ng the testamentary scheme. The trust shall otherwise con4nue to operate strictly in accordance with the Will.

Final Result :

120. With the aforesaid direc4ons, all the Regular Second Appeals stand dismissed. The trusteeship as cons4tuted under the Will is preserved. The above compliance direc4ons shall form an integral and enforceable part of the decree.

121. Pending applica4ons, if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

 January 14, 2026                                            (DEEPAK GUPTA)
 Sarita/Nee3ka                                                    JUDGE

                 Whether speaking/reasoned?         Yes
                 Whether reportable?                Yes

Uploaded on : January 16, 2026




                                    Page N: 50 of 50 Pages
                                         50 of 50